Toddler Dies After Mistaking Gun For Realistic Wii Controller

[Cain]

I did not say same category. I said that these acts expose the kids to risk. 30% of deaths of children aged 1-4 are due to drowning. People get up in arms about the dangers of guns, but say "oh, how awesome" when you tell them you have a back yard pool. The latter is probably more dangerous to own than the gun. So yes, leaving your back door unlocked or your child unattended if you have a pool is extremely dangerous.

I've also read Freakonomics. I don't disagree. From a public policy standpoint, more probably needs to be done about swimming pools. From a public policy standpoint, you're probably more likely to slip in the tub and crack your skill than get blown up by al-Qaeda. However, a person who leaves a gun lying around is an idiot.

 

[Cavemonster]

I did not say same category. I said that these acts expose the kids to risk. 30% of deaths of children aged 1-4 are due to drowning. People get up in arms about the dangers of guns, but say "oh, how awesome" when you tell them you have a back yard pool. The latter is probably more dangerous to own than the gun. So yes, leaving your back door unlocked or your child unattended if you have a pool is extremely dangerous.

This is slightly misleading, the risk of guns for kids under 4 is less because they can't pick one up or climb a chair to reach an object on a table easily. The risk od drowning is greater because their lung capacity and motor skills are both undeveloped.

Look at the age range from 5-15 and those risks change significantly.

It will generally take two minutes of drowning to create irreversible brain damage vs. two seconds to fire a bullet.

You said before that you didn't see the significance behind exposure/fatality rate. Let me compare rates for you.

You said that the number of pool deaths being greater than the number of gun deaths among children suggested that pools should be taken as seriously as guns as a risk.

Only about 60-100 people worldwide die from tiger attacked each year. That's miniscule compared to drownings and gun accidents. I don't know how many of those are children, but I'm betting the single digits to low doubles.

So, should every house have a pet tiger? Would that be a great idea?

No, the numbers are low because comparatively few people are even exposed to tigers. The numbers for drowning are high because everyone swims, bathes, walks near the beach and by fountains, and generally interacts with water a whole lot, all the time.

It takes 2min or more for irreversible brain damage to set in from drowning. It takes 2 seconds to put a bullet through your head.

Yes, guns are more dangerous than swimming pools, so are tigers. Accurate risk management takes into account exposure.

 

[grunion]

Yes, guns are more dangerous than swimming pools, so are tigers. Accurate risk management takes into account exposure.

Exactly. Thousands of children die from the flu every year. Thus by the reasoning provided (reductio ad absurdum), it is far safer to keep children home all day with the guns than to send those children off to school, where they are exposed to all kinds of nasty things.

Guns are dangerous things to have around kids. There are of course ways of mitigating that risk but they are dangerous by their very nature. There is an argument that the ownership of a gun somehow makes ones family safer, but I have not seen good evidence for that statement. There are other reasons that people have guns (i.e. sporting, collecting, or as some kind of political statement) but none of these are claimed to have any benefit for the children in the households that hold them. Swimming pools are also hazardous by their nature, but the vast majority of children benefit from having them around. This benefit does not absolve the pool owner from safe practices. My swimming pool is fenced and padlocked year-round, and my children have learned water safety since before they could walk, but there is still the danger of some kind of tragedy. They wear seat belts in the car but there is still the danger of their death every time we drive anywhere. But to us, the benefits of driving outweigh the risks.

I expect gun owners feel the same way about their weapons, but for some (as the one in the OP) they are severely underestimating their ability to mitigate the risks. Gun owners of course should (and I expect that most do) teach their children gun safety. Letting their children (especially the pre-sentient ones) casually play with toy guns, especially if they own a gun themselves, is the opposite of responsible parenting.

 

[Father Dagon]

But isn't realistic lightguns and soft airguns supposed to be painted in day-glo colours in the US?

 

[roger]

This is slightly misleading, the risk of guns for kids under 4 is less because they can't pick one up or climb a chair to reach an object on a table easily. The risk od drowning is greater because their lung capacity and motor skills are both undeveloped.

Look at the age range from 5-15 and those risks change significantly.

It will generally take two minutes of drowning to create irreversible brain damage vs. two seconds to fire a bullet.

You said before that you didn't see the significance behind exposure/fatality rate. Let me compare rates for you.

You said that the number of pool deaths being greater than the number of gun deaths among children suggested that pools should be taken as seriously as guns as a risk.

Only about 60-100 people worldwide die from tiger attacked each year. That's miniscule compared to drownings and gun accidents. I don't know how many of those are children, but I'm betting the single digits to low doubles.

So, should every house have a pet tiger? Would that be a great idea?

No, the numbers are low because comparatively few people are even exposed to tigers. The numbers for drowning are high because everyone swims, bathes, walks near the beach and by fountains, and generally interacts with water a whole lot, all the time.

It takes 2min or more for irreversible brain damage to set in from drowning. It takes 2 seconds to put a bullet through your head.

Yes, guns are more dangerous than swimming pools, so are tigers. Accurate risk management takes into account exposure.

I see what you are saying. I guess my point is that exposure is already baked into the numbers in the case of guns, so we don't need to consider that when we are looking at current risks. OTOH, if we are going to look at how to change risks exposure is a key component.

And I think we see that in the numbers. Look at the trend of childhood deaths due to firearms from the 70s to now. Steadily down. I have no proof, but I imagine that is due to the education efforts being made to get people to lock up their firearms if kids are around. We can probably also point to hunter education courses, concealed carry classes, more press, etc. (I'm just purely guessing here, I have no data).

As age goes up, other things come into play. By the teens, the biggest factors are drugs and suicide, if I remember correctly, not ND (negligent discharge - most 'gun nuts' prefer that term to accidental discharge as it ain't an 'accident' - the gun doesn't go off by itself except in the rare dropped handgun case - it's almost always a clear case of negligence of the most basic safety procedures).

As for misleading (your first paragraph), once again I'm not trying to say these are the same thing, in the same category, or whatever. I'm merely pointing out that everyday children face worse risks than firearms, and that parental negligence that we have all been culpable of can lead to a tragedy. I don't want this to become a gun control argument. I do want to talk about safety and how not to shoot/electrocute/drown/burn our children. That's all.

And in that light, I feel pretty damn sorry for this family. Assuming the story is true, they all have to be devastated, and I don't feel the call for the guy's head is warranted, unless you feel somebody should be prosecuted if their kid wanders out in the back yard. It's easily to vilify somebody, especially on an internet forum. Meanwhile, every year people are killing their children by taking their eyes off the road for a second, falling asleep behind the wheel, failing to fully click the seat belt in, putting the drain cleaner under the sink when they were in a rush unpacking groceries (they meant to put it on a high shelf where they normally put it), letting the tike run into traffic, and yes, forgetting to put a gun away. We should be having a discussion about child safety, not gun control, IMO.

But for your last sentence, I have to disagree. Based on current exposure levels, guns are extremely safe. And gun owners are doing what they can to get the word out to reduce that exposure even more (gun safes, safety classes, etc). There's several hundred million firearms in the US - getting on close to 1 per person.

 

[ssbn506]

To me this looks like an issue of how much do we want the government to do to protect us from ourselves. Their is also the fear factor a gun can have on people who have never been around them.

I look at it like this. People die in car accidents. If you have a seat belt on you are less likely to die. Now at one time testing and studies determined seat belts can save lives and cars started to include them. But only a small portion of the population used them.

The government now has a few options. Educate people with a public campaign and hope they see the dangers and make the informed decision to use them. Option two just make it against the law not to ware a seat belts No education program needed only an law awareness program and you can fine people who don't comply. Option three ban cars. last option do nothing.

Option two saves lives, wont require educating people and will make you sum money. As a politician what would you pick.

Now you can apply the logic to just about anything. Boating, skydiving, biking, flying and guns. Now in Canada with respect to guns they went with a bit of option 2 and a light sprinkling of option 3. In Australia they went with option 3 with a light sprinkling of option 2.

Now it is up to every individual how they want to live in their country. Sum say ban everything we can that could be dangerous. Other say freedom is about the freedom to be stupid if you want to. Most go for a balance.

The big problem is sum people think we should not be aloud to take risks that could hurt us or others. They tend to be on the ban guns side of things. Others think we have a right to be stupid. They tend to be on the no regulation side of things. Everyone ells is somewhere in the middle.

My question is where do you the reader of the post fall into? You can easily tell with most of the posts.

 

[roger]

ssbn, good post. My feelings is that if you want to have a gun control discussion, you shouldn't be talking about ND. In 2006, there were 30986 firearm deaths. Only 642 were accidental. Or, as I like to put it, "accidental". Furthermore, we've made great strides in ND as far as children go (I have no idea of what the data is for adults) since the 1970s.

 

[skeptical]

I consider myself a responsible gun owner, and I have a home defense plan. I think rather than just point out misconceptions, I'll be proactive and share what I do.

You obviously have a need for home protection that includes weapons and have done a considerable amount of due diligence to ensure you do so responsibly.

Do you think that similarly situation home owners should be required by law to be able to demonstrate a similar level of diligence (safe, plans for use, competency with firearms, etc) in order to have a firearm in their home?

 

[roger]

Do you think that similarly situation home owners should be required by law to be able to demonstrate a similar level of diligence (safe, plans for use, competency with firearms, etc) in order to have a firearm in their home?

Can you think of anything else that requires that much infrastructure and testing that only causes 600 or so deaths a year? IN comparison, there are over 23,000 accidental poisoning deaths a year - do you feel you need training, testing, and licensing to have, say, bleach or lye in the house?


I'll point out that accidental poisonings have been rising in the last few decades, while accidental shootings have been lowering.


source

 

[Cavemonster]

Can you think of anything else that requires that much infrastructure and testing that only causes 600 or so deaths a year? IN comparison, there are over 23,000 accidental poisoning deaths a year - do you feel you need training, testing, and licensing to have, say, bleach or lye in the house?


I'll point out that accidental poisonings have been rising in the last few decades, while accidental shootings have been lowering.


source

We place that burden on the manufacturer's end. Child safety caps, testing for children's toys, clothing and everything sold for children to come in contact with, these are all hugely regulated.

There is an entire industry of testing and protections to address this.

In addition, the definition of accidental or unitentional poisoning that the CDC uses to get those figures is very broad. It includes, for instance, recreational drug overdosing, something we do get quite worried about.

From the CDC site

Poisonings are either intentional or unintentional. If the person taking or giving a substance did not mean to cause harm, then it is an unintentional poisoning. Unintentional poisoning includes the use of drugs or chemicals for recreational purposes in excessive amounts, such as an �overdose.� It also includes the excessive use of drugs or chemicals for nonrecreational purposes, such as by a toddler.

In 2004, 95% of unintentional and undetermined poisoning deaths were caused by drugs (WONDER 2007). Opioid pain medications were most commonly involved, followed by cocaine and heroin (Paulozzi et al. 2006).

And children under 15 were the least effected group.

http://www.cdc.gov/NCIPC/factsheets/poisoning.htm

Looking at those stats, of the 23,000, the vast majority were adults abusing or misusing drugs. Only about 1,150 could be attributed to bleach, rat poison, cleaning powder and everything else. And considering that only 1/6 of the households in the US have guns, but every household has potentially dangerous if ingested cleaning substances, the risk/exposure of guns once again jumps out as being greater.

EDIT: C'mon Roger, it was your source, why didn't you read the whole page?

 

[roger]

We place that burden on the manufacturer's end. Child safety caps, testing for children's toys, clothing and everything sold for children to come in contact with, these are all hugely regulated.

There is an entire industry of testing and protections to address this.

In addition, the definition of accidental or unitentional poisoning that the CDC uses to get those figures is very broad. It includes, for instance, recreational drug overdosing, something we do get quite worried about.

From the CDC site




And children under 15 were the least effected group.

http://www.cdc.gov/NCIPC/factsheets/poisoning.htm

Looking at those stats, of the 23,000, the vast majority were adults abusing or misusing drugs. Only about 1,150 could be attributed to bleach, rat poison, cleaning powder and everything else. And considering that only 1/6 of the households in the US have guns, but every household has potentially dangerous if ingested cleaning substances, the risk/exposure of guns once again jumps out as being greater.

EDIT: C'mon Roger, it was your source, why didn't you read the whole page?

I'm not trying to play the stats game. Guns are dangerous. Bleach is dangerous. Swimming pools are dangerous, as are unpadded stairs, drugs, etc. You can play with the numbers forever. Personally, I'm not sure why it matters that the accidental poisoning is due to drugs. But, you'll say it is, we'll go round and round. For example, you could point out that you need a license to prescribe and/or dispense opiates. And I'll point out other drugs that don't require that license. Then we'll dig and try to break down it, etc., etc. Would we really get anywhere with that?

I say no, at least for me, because 642 deaths just isn't that many no matter how you slice and dice it. We have bigger fish to fry IMO. Like, for example, educating people on the dangers of drug overdose. I realize it doesn't work as easily as this but if you reach only 1% of the people, that would be 6 deaths saved in the case of guns, but 230 in the case of drugs. And I'd imagine the campaign for each would cost roughly the same.

Another example: swimming pool deaths hover right around 2000. Undoubtedly someone is going to dig into those numbers and make some point about lifeguards, nonskid surfaces, or people pushing somebody else in, or rescuers dying, or something. But the fact is more people die accidentally in swimming pools. Let me bold this, so my point it clear I am not saying that since 640 < 2000, gun danger < pool danger. It's clearly more complicated that that. It all depends on how you mean the phrase "more dangerous" for one thing. Per capita? Per user (swimmer & gun owner). Per event (going swimming/handling a gun)?

From a public safety, # of families weeping over a loved one, more die from swimming pools. Yet on a day-to-day basis, I'm very likely to hear somebody excoriate gun owners, but pool owners? Not so much. I argue our fears are misplaced*.

Henceforth I'm going to start using the term "pool nuts".



* in terms of accidents only. Firearms used in murders have very different numbers.

 

[pgwenthold]

Whenever there is a pitbull attack that kills or seriously injures a kid, the dog supporters come out with the "there are no bad dogs, only bad owners'' line. And to an extent, that is true. A lot of damage is done by bad dog owners.

But it isn't completely true. When Aunt Esther's out of control chihuahua goes beserck and attacks an 8 year old kid, it might break skin but ultimately gets kicked across the room. When an 80 pound pit bull loses control, there aren't many who are getting out of it that easily.

There are irresponsible owners of all respects, but some weapons are far more dangerous than others.

 

[roger]

There are irresponsible owners of all respects, but some weapons are far more dangerous than others.

Right. Like ATVs. More accidental deaths due to ATVs then firearms (not broken out by age), and (IIRC) hella more injuries.

And we'd rightly call anybody that left their ATV keys in the ignition an idiot, and anyone that let a 3 year old play with the ATV criminally negligent. We'd also probably point out the number of deaths caused by head injuries with these things, and suggest a campaign touting helmet use.

Just like we'd call anyone leaving a gun out around children an idiot, and anyone that let a 3 year old play with the gun criminally negligent.

As for dogs, the pitbull thread is thataway - I'll just say the CDC says the fatality statistics are statistically insignificant (you can't draw any conclusion about breeds from them), and furthermore the real story is dog bites - tons of injuries, to which pit bulls contribute very little compared to other breeds.


I think I'm done here. My point is simple - we have many dangers to our children and ourselves, and we are very bad at assessing risks. We are afraid to fly but happy to drive. We fear animal attacks during a hike but are blithe about the probability of falling off a ledge. We fear guns but hop on our ATVs and tear up the desert. We fret about the person smoking near us then order a 3000 calorie dinner. Etc.

 

[grunion]

Right. Like ATVs. More accidental deaths due to ATVs then firearms (not broken out by age), and (IIRC) hella more injuries.

And we'd rightly call anybody that left their ATV keys in the ignition an idiot, and anyone that let a 3 year old play with the ATV criminally negligent. We'd also probably point out the number of deaths caused by head injuries with these things, and suggest a campaign touting helmet use.

Just like we'd call anyone leaving a gun out around children an idiot, and anyone that let a 3 year old play with the gun criminally negligent.

As for dogs, the pitbull thread is thataway - I'll just say the CDC says the fatality statistics are statistically insignificant (you can't draw any conclusion about breeds from them), and furthermore the real story is dog bites - tons of injuries, to which pit bulls contribute very little compared to other breeds.


I think I'm done here. My point is simple - we have many dangers to our children and ourselves, and we are very bad at assessing risks. We are afraid to fly but happy to drive. We fear animal attacks during a hike but are blithe about the probability of falling off a ledge. We fear guns but hop on our ATVs and tear up the desert. We fret about the person smoking near us then order a 3000 calorie dinner. Etc.

Yes there are indeed many dangers. The main question raised by the story in the OP, to me, is, Why? Why put children at risk like this? Why manufacture toys that look like guns? Why let your three year old play with toys that look like guns?

There are some risks worth taking, like getting out of bed in the morning, having a swimming pool or dog, letting my kids go to school, etc. I don't put owning a gun on that list because I do not see a personal benefit from it, only risk. You may call me an idiot for not wanting a gun in my home but to me it is not even a consideration, as irrational as that might seem to you. You may think I'm deluded for not letting my kids play with toy guns, but to me it is common sense. The fact that a company makes a Wii controler that looks like a gun (yes I do believe in corporate responsibility) and that a parent would purchase such an item utterly disgusts me.

 

[ServiceSoon]

O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us

The reason for the success of the pro-gun movement is based on two key components.

1. A majority of American's, who are also vocal. (Regardless of what Anti-gun organization polls say. If the anti-gun polls are correct, then why does the NRA continue to receive money which allows them to continue fighting the battle on all fronts)? It is these people who fund "the evil" NRA. The NRA, SAF, GOA, JPFO, etc is nobody without it's members.

2. The US Constitution.

To overcome the above 2 components, it will require changing the opinions of number 1 above.

Many anti-gun proponents point to the lower homicide rate of other developed countries who have more restrictive gun laws, as proof that fewer guns is most beneficial to society. If interested please read the report below from the New Yorker which trys to explain the reason for this difference. I caution you, it's long.

"The United States has the highest homicide rate of any affluent democracy, nearly four times that of France and the United Kingdom, and six times that of Germany. Why? Historians haven't often asked this question."

 

[grunion]

1. A majority of American's, who are also vocal.

Where is your evidence that a majority of Americans are pro-gun? There are many well-funded lobbies that represent minority views.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The reason for the success of the pro-gun movement is based on two key components.

1. A majority of American's, who are also vocal. (Regardless of what Anti-gun organization polls say. If the anti-gun polls are correct, then why does the NRA continue to receive money which allows them to continue fighting the battle on all fronts)? It is these people who fund "the evil" NRA. The NRA, SAF, GOA, JPFO, etc is nobody without it's members.

So you think a majority of Americans supported prohibition?

Clearly a majority of americans were against the government negotiating drug prices for Medicare part D. Otherwise who would fund the PhRMA lobby? Clearly as they are a well funded lobby group they have broad support.

This is how we know the very broad support americans have for the teaching of creationism vs science in science classrooms. Look at the funding of say the discovery institute vs that National Center for Science Education.

Clearly skeptics need to shut up and listen to the will of the people.

 

[roger]

The fact that a company makes a Wii controler that looks like a gun (yes I do believe in corporate responsibility) and that a parent would purchase such an item utterly disgusts me.

I don't think anyone really disagrees with you on this point.

 

[lylfyl]

Which proves, anecdotally, that police officers should not be allowed to have guns.

The irony, I think is that the gun control crowd seems to have no problem with cops carrying guns, yet cops are not any better than the rest of us.. If a cop can save lives by carrying a gun, why cannot a (similarly vetted) citizen?

I encountered this bizarre dichotomy a while back while shopping for child car seats in a Babies-R-Us store. There was a cop there to give advice on child seats (I'm not sure what makes him more expert than safety engineers) but there he was in a room full of young children, gun at his side. And I wondered how much people would be SCREAMING if anyone without the uniform was doing EXACTLY the same thing. I'm sure the argument would go "I don't care how 'good' you are, guns are too dangerous to keep around young children ... etc".

But there he was. People wandering around and no one saying a damn thing. Hypocrites.

Hypocrites? You've seen people start screaming when they see someone open carrying?

A lot of people will give a fully geared up law enforcement officer the benefit of the doubt. Not because police are perfect, but there's a lot more accountability and oversight involved. If a home defense gun is too inaccessible in a gun safe, then why would you want LEOs to put their guns out of reach? Yes, police can screw up - I love the video of the DEA agent shooting himself in the foot.

The problem is I have no way of knowing if a random citizen is "similarly vetted". As far as I know , many states have ZERO additional training required to open carry, other than what's necessary to purchase a gun. You don't have prove you can use it well or safely. (Concealed carry does have more training, but then, if people can tell you're carrying, you're not doing it right.)

Personally, I think Concealed carry licensing and training is a great idea. I wish it was feasible to extend this training to all gun purchases, but that would just turn into a constitutional/bureaucratic nightmare.
My rule of thumb: They're probably legit if they actually have it in a holster instead of just shoved in their waistband.

There was a cop there to give advice on child seats (I'm not sure what makes him more expert than safety engineers)

Meh, he's not, that's just the visage of authority. Except the police SHOULD know what meets the legal requirements, if they are installed properly in the vehicles, and what happens in car accidents if they are not....

 

[ponderingturtle]

The problem is I have no way of knowing if a random citizen is "similarly vetted". As far as I know , many states have ZERO additional training required to open carry, other than what's necessary to purchase a gun. You don't have prove you can use it well or safely. (Concealed carry does have more training, but then, if people can tell you're carrying, you're not doing it right.)

My understanding is that some states have no special requirements for concealed carry. This was an issue a few years ago with the idea of permitting someone with a concealed carry license in one state to carry concealed in any state that issues concealed carry permits.